Just from memory the 1st RFP had the more typical DOD contract structure, basically a cost plus fixed margin type where if the unit cost goes up $ 10M the contractor receives $12M. NG loves those kinds of contracts as there is little risk. When it became the 2nd RFP it was changed to a fixed unit price for the initial batch then a modest escalator based on a price index. Much higher risk, but similar risk to commercial contracts. NG probably felt that it could be squeezed from AB below and the Gov't above, so they bailed.

Boeing is hurting on this first batch, but is probably OK with the follow on batches to 179. If it continues past 179 the contract price is renegotiated then, basically as a sole source. The gravy is support and those planes past 179.

The pace of drones is sufficient that the AF may not go past 179, instead get drone tankers.

The thrust reversers were specifically removed in favor of a fixed duct at the last minute under great secrecy. It was the ace in the hole against Airbus' proposal. It was a win-win-win scenario by removing them. Gained useful payload (more fuel) and reduced maintenance costs for a system the USAF didn't want anyways. Why fly around with thrust reversers you will never use? This was a no brainer and is well known as one of the reasons Boeing won the contract (besides you know all the lobbyists).

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

Just from memory the 1st RFP had the more typical DOD contract structure, basically a cost plus fixed margin type where if the unit cost goes up $ 10M the contractor receives $12M. NG loves those kinds of contracts as there is little risk. When it became the 2nd RFP it was changed to a fixed unit price for the initial batch then a modest escalator based on a price index. Much higher risk, but similar risk to commercial contracts. NG probably felt that it could be squeezed from AB below and the Gov't above, so they bailed.

Boeing is hurting on this first batch, but is probably OK with the follow on batches to 179. If it continues past 179 the contract price is renegotiated then, basically as a sole source. The gravy is support and those planes past 179.

The pace of drones is sufficient that the AF may not go past 179, instead get drone tankers.

I don't think the USAF is going to pay a cent more for the KC-46 than they did for the original 179. I think Boeing is gambling on the USAF paying more to help cover cost overruns from the original contract.

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

I don't think the USAF is going to pay a cent more for the KC-46 than they did for the original 179. I think Boeing is gambling on the USAF paying more to help cover cost overruns from the original contract.

The USAF is going to pay more if the data shows that they need to pay more.

Boeing has already taken the hit for the cost over run, they will not roll the cost into the next contract. New KC-46 contracts will be priced with consideration for inflation, improved manufacturing efficiency and a reasonable profit. Charging extra to make up for losses in previous batches will not be allowed. Boeing will not do this as it will risk breaking government contracting laws and losing]other government contracts.

par13del wrote:

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

Having not read the RFP, but it would be unlikely any mention of the T/R would be found in it. Typically RFPs are based on performance and not necessarily hardware. And since the T/Rs are not included in any certification performance requirements (FAA or other wise), it would be more difficult if you were to add them just to meet the performance requirements.

Bottom line is that the TR's are not required for the KC-46 or the KC-45 to meet the RFP (or FAA) requirements. Removing them would cost only a small amount of Engineering work to design them out of existing commercial nacelles while providing significant savings in cost and weight and complexity.

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

Quite right. As for specifics I cannot say. It's common knowledge among those familiar with it, and familiar with how the air force operates their tanker fleets. To be honest I'm not sure why Airbus didn't think to do it themselves either. There really is no reason to have a thrust reverser on a tanker considering the airports they operate out of.

Looks like issues with the Centerline Drogue System supplied by Cobham needs additional work to complete FAA certification and the head of Air Mobility Command said that until it is fixed "the KC-46A is not acceptable". Cobham estimates it will cost $52 million to complete the work and Boeing is withholding payments to them. Boeing says the CDS and WARPS (also a Cobham product) will be certified in time to make the October delivery date. Guess we'll have to see.

Quite right. As for specifics I cannot say. It's common knowledge among those familiar with it, and familiar with how the air force operates their tanker fleets. To be honest I'm not sure why Airbus didn't think to do it themselves either. There really is no reason to have a thrust reverser on a tanker considering the airports they operate out of.

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Other companies have made it work. The A330 MRTT uses cameras with a boom instead of a window. And it saves you having to re-engineer the entire aft end to put a massive piece of glass in.

As I recall, the only one problem with the camera system was a red herring. As discussed earlier, the issue with the boom scraping was not that the new system scraped any more than the old system. It's just that the Air Force wanted something better than the old system even though the contract did not account for the improvement. Boeing solved it through some software change, which would not have been possible with the window in the belly option.

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree

This seems like technology for technologies sake

Camera problems could end a mission, the simplicity of just looking out of a window with a direct field of view really can’t be beat

The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

Guns and the love of them by a loud minority are a malignant and deadly cancer inflicted on American society

Then why did they use the camera on the A330 tanker? To put a person on the aft lower lobe, you'll have to cut through the main deck floor panel, add the ladder, add the crew station hardware, including radios and oxygen connection. Can't say much about weight of the work station vs. the window station. But cost of the console would be much less than the mod for the belly window.

These cameras are probably more reliable than the fuel pumps on this plane. And can someone confirm if these cameras can zoom?

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree

This seems like technology for technologies sake

Camera problems could end a mission, the simplicity of just looking out of a window with a direct field of view really can’t be beat

The bottom line is even the best 3D cameras are still not as good as the old Mk.1 eyeball looking through a window for depth perception. The KC-767A/Js and the KC-30/A-330MRTTs have a generation of cameras that is one generation older than those on the KC-46. But these cameras just are not good enough, yet.

The Booms on all of these new generation of tankers are scraping receivers, but so is the Booms on the KC-135, KC-10, KC-707, and the KDC-10. It was the same even going back to the days of the KC-97s and KB-50s.

But those older tankers with Boom Pods have fewer incidents because the Boom Operator reacts directly to tanker, Boom, and receiver movements. Why? Being in the tail of the tanker allows the Boom Operator to feel the movements much quicker than being closer to the tankers center of gravity being between the cockpit and the wing. In other words, Boom Operators still fly by the 'seat of thier pants'.

Refueling in turbulence is always going to cause the boom to strike the receiver outside of the receptacle area, no matter which tanker it is..

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree

This seems like technology for technologies sake

Camera problems could end a mission, the simplicity of just looking out of a window with a direct field of view really can’t be beat

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

Second one should be if thye've got pressure sensors and motors on the boom. Some tweaks to the software to have it retract the boom a bit when needed.

Ahhh.. I was thinking from the aspect of the boom being too stiff and unforgiving between the two aircraft, as if you were basically being dragged around by the boom. You're right, that should just be a change to the snubbing in the hydraulics.

Deliver the damn planes, let the front line flight crews get used to working with their new planesand all these squawks will be solved.

...or the front line crew will finally identify real issues versus the delaying that is taking place, methinks there have been some issues which could have been avoided or at least not use for major delays, the scraping issue sticks....Now we read that the US Air Force cannot absorb 18 tankers delivered in the space of a couple months, really, for a product that has been delayed a couple years which are more efficient / economical and may allow more flying hours....which pilots don't want to fly?Unless they are using delays to cover pilot shortfall...

Deliver the damn planes, let the front line flight crews get used to working with their new planesand all these squawks will be solved.

...or the front line crew will finally identify real issues versus the delaying that is taking place, methinks there have been some issues which could have been avoided or at least not use for major delays, the scraping issue sticks....Now we read that the US Air Force cannot absorb 18 tankers delivered in the space of a couple months, really, for a product that has been delayed a couple years which are more efficient / economical and may allow more flying hours....which pilots don't want to fly?Unless they are using delays to cover pilot shortfall...

The aircraft will still have to go through OT&E so plenty of time to learn the jet and the quirks, as well as ensure it meets requirements.

I can understand the USAF not being able to take so many jets so quickly, they haven't had pilots sitting around waiting so the work up to ramp up.

I believe they still need the Military Type Certificate from the USAF to be granted before they can begin deliveries. They have the Amended Type Certificate for the 767-2C and last month received the Supplemental Type Certificate for the KC-46A configuration (both from the FAA).

And the new delay was due directly to the lack of the MTC, which is not ready due to the STC having taken longer than the USAF expected. So sounds like once the USAF issues the MTC, deliveries can commence even if there remain deficiencies to be corrected.

Gentlemen, could you take your Airbus vs Boeing tanker discussion to one of the numerous threads that already exist for that purpose please. The topic and arguments have been done to death and I'm sure I'm not alone in not wishing to see this thread derailed with the same tired old arguments being rehashed by fanboys on each side of the fence. Thank you.

OK it's October and Boeing is supposed to be delivering some of these tankers... so is anything happening or has the date slid again and I missed noting it.

Speculation from a contract with an event organizer (port-a-potties and chairs) that the ceremony will be on or around November 16th.

Today's the supposed date. Anyone heard any other info?

Saw this on one of our web pages:

It's amazing how much money Boeing must have tied up in 'accounts receivable' with no way to receive those amounts, yet.

Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the worldThe heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its ownWake now, discover that you are the song that the morning bringsThe heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own

The USAF has confirmed that the 27 October delivery goal was not achieved and is not committing to a 2018 EIS though that still appears to be the goal. The USAF does not require the CAT-1 deficiencies to be addressed prior to accepting delivery, but Boeing is operating under the assumption they will need to be mitigated to at least CAT-2 prior to the USAF issuing the Military Airworthiness Certificate required to begin deliveries, hence the lack of a firm delivery date.

On 7 November the USAF downgraded the boom axial load issue and the center drogue issue from CAT-1 to CAT-2 as software workarounds have been identified for both. Three CAT-1 issues remain: two for the Remote Vision System and one on the stiffness of the boom.